In developing the structure for a government, the designer(s) may well look to
the past for ideas. Not necessarily to mimic, but to gain some insight into
possibilities for consideration. But such a situation occurs in various other
endeavors be they science, religion, mathematics, linguistics, sports, etc... In
short, one looks for ideas to be used in developing a strategy that may at least
give an outline if not an indirect suggestion which alters a vague representation
into a more visible construct. While such ideas may in a subject area far removed
from that which a particular reader is submerged in at a given moment, there is
some basic quality which makes itself available to usage by those whose mind is
particularly receptive to a portrayed theme.

Such ideas may be referred to as precedents, in that they not only have come
previously in time, though perhaps in a very different context, but might nonetheless
well be used as a justification for effecting a given design. Precedents are examples.
In terms of law, a determination of a wrong or right may be based on one or more
examples which are similar to a particular case. In such an event, a judge and jury
may render a verdict based on previous examples instead of a mere statute... it is
a highly desirable flexibility in the law which permits individual cases to be judged
on their own merits... differences of perspective denoted as the spirit of the law
or the letter of the law. It is a dichotomy of old that would be better suited to
the present age that is future bound by reinterpreting distinctions in a three-part
categorization of Art of Law, Science of Law, and Spirit of Law. Unfortunately, the
philosophical end of law is dragging its feet because its tail-end remains in and
returns too often to a distant antiquity in an attempt to gather insight.

With respect to the present context of consideration, there are examples from
other subject areas which might be applied as setting precedents for the usage of
a Cenocratic formula. However, let us review the specific contour of the formula
which is being addressed. This component is one in which the Cenocratic usage of
a Peoples Legislative Branch placed alongside the three present (Executive, Legislative,
Judicial) Branches is to be contrasted with the present structure that is absent
such an addition. In other words, the former is a three -to- one schematic and the
latter is a three, in singular, one. We might also portray it as a 3 to 1 and 3,
though someone else might prefer some other image such as 3:1/... 3.

The U.S. Government presently uses a three-patterned Executive - Legislative -
Judicial formula based on the Charles Montesquieu's 1748 notion of "Separation of
Powers" commonly referred to as a "Checks and Balances" provision. Whereas the
design is meant to keep all of the branches from exerting too much power, the
reality is that they do... because the practiced design permits them the ability
to do so. Both the President (Executive Branch) and Congress (Legislative Branch)
can hold up needed legislation, and the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) can either
delay making a verdict or favor a verdict in accord with a given political philosophy
that is in-tune with the person who selected them for office. All three branches
of government have means and methods by which they can interfere with a particular
action that is needed by the public and the people have no recourse in which to
force the government to stop playing a game of power struggle or be selectively
opinionated... unless the people resort to some form of revolt. The need for using
a Revolution (instead of a more rational approach) to effect policy, proceeding,
or public desire is built into the system as if it were a radically extreme variation
of an auxiliary (peoples) branch of government... which some might analogously refer
to in terms of a "Hail Mary" football pass. Such a situation is a highly incredulous
state of affairs to be practiced by a modern literate society and needs to be
rectified by a re-design in the structure of government.

In developing the logic, though some might prefer the usage of the word "argument"
for the adoption of a Cenocratic formula... as a means of illustrating the colloquial
exponent of conversational content that "it makes sense"... expressions or ideas
which provoke the development of simple images such as the fore-going enumeration,
can be beneficially useful to those whose vocabulary or subject matter experience
retain a primary interest in information that does not go beyond a Jr. High or
High school level... though some may be self-taught in advanced subject matter.

But looking solely to the past with respect to former political ideals reveals
but a superficiality of design architecture. We can not rely primarily on mere
political themes of the past to provide assertive support for an idea whose structure
and eventually acquired collectivity of public ideas will far exceed the simplistic
nature of present social governing systems. While the initial efforts of establishing
a Cenocracy will be by elementary steps, once a foothold has taken place, the people
themselves will collectively transform themselves into an unrealized sophistication
of practiced potential. Whereas many sciences, religions and even the military look
about to all of nature to formulate some enhanced perspectives through analogy and
metaphor, if not replication— such as flight, camouflage and a concretion of
properties such as rock formations... political perspectives very often lack the
initiative to look beyond their immediate purviews... even when the very basics of
politicized jurisprudence often takes its cue from experiences derived from nature
or similarly, from the generalized natural state of a person in a given context.

The three-branch government can be referred to as a type of symbiotic tri-partite
structure that is forced to find some measure of harmonious inter-activity on behalf
of the whole organism, which is the Nation or State. Whereas the three are intended
as some controlling organ such as a (Macleanian) tripartite brain, it is a brain
whose personality can be deduced as that expressing multiple conflicts that some,
with a penchant for psychology, may analogously describe in terms of a Reptilian,
Old Mammal and New Mammal brain. Whereas the public, if viewed as the heart, body
and soul of the State or Nation organism, is frequently left to suffer in the wake
of the conflicts without recourse except to resort to the instinct of survival called
Revolution... Otherwise it must engage in activities which attempt to numb, to obscure,
to rationalize, to deny, to excuse, to indulge distraction, to inebriate, or to drug
their acknowledgment of the multiple consternations revolving about in the activities
of its tri-partite brain. It's brain, when viewed from the analogy that its tripartite
structure are three "supposed to cooperate" branches, is not cooperating with addressing
the needs of the body-politic. The State or Nation, as an organism, must either
continue in its present course of dealing as best as it can within set governing
guidelines, or permit the organism to mature, and perhaps even evolve into a new
species by adopting a greater insight into its-"self" by way of a new social formula
of social "self"-governance.

But let us look at some precedents for considering the adoption of a new social
governing formula:

While those with a penchant for perpetuating governing systems as they are...
because they have found a workable niche'... will look to the basics of life called
genetics and denote a triplet coding system; others, when it is pointed out, will
see a three -to- one characterization. For example, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid),
has the amino acid structure of Adenosine - Cytosine - Guanine and Thymine:

While both have the same initial three, the latter amino acid defines the particular.
Analogously, the three branches of government are defined by the people in a Cenocracy,
by the addition of a Peoples Legislative Branch. The people are an essential component,
though some perspectives might prefer to call them auxiliary items. In short, the
structure of government must move beyond its problematic design and adopt the
architecture of a three -to- one characterization. Simply put, this means to utilize
another government branch called the Peoples Legislative Branch.

A simpler example taken from an American context, is to note that vending machines
very often utilized the accepted formula of three coins denoted as nickels - dimes -
quarters, with some machines accommodating the usage of a dollar bill, a entity of
paper, that is a singular comprehensive quality containing the three. In like fashion,
to illustrate another widely recognized item, is to say that sentences may use one
of three ending punctuation marks. And for a third example, let us make reference
to the usage of three colors defined by their application to a piece of cloth and
named flag.

But Let us take another example, though its description is known for having
controversial elements of discussion, derived from Christianity. While many
are aware of the Trinity, in that it represents the idea of three persons or aspects
in one God, it is the people whose presence is to be noted as a valuable asset even
though they are minimized into an adjunctive, lesser quality. If they people are
not included in the equation, the people revolt by adopting a different religious
perspective, including the denial of the Trinitarian concept. Even if a person denies
the concept, just like if people were to deny the three branches of government, there
would nonetheless be activities revolving around Executive - Legislative - Judicial
references. There is the head of a church, the functionaries of a church, and the
laws of a church, more commonly denoted as religious laws. Whether you separate or
combine the three, they nonetheless must coincide with the needs of the people,
or must effect useful changes on their behalf as the primary concern; and not use
the people (i.e. "flock") as a tool by which an established church authority can
perpetuate itself at the expense of the people, as has so often been the case. When
church authority fails to assist the people in their religious needs, the people
revolt if there is no way for them to play an individualized or collective role.
They develop a new religion to satisfy and legitimate their views. While the people
are not necessarily viewed as monsters, they might be viewed as being "only human",
unlike those who are "chosen" to lead the 'flock' who sometimes view themselves as
being "different", "closer to god", or a little less human and more godly or saintly.

Setting up circumstances which enables one to be "chosen", or at least be defined
accordingly, is very irresistible to some people. They must be seen as reflecting
a quality above some norm that thus renders them into a state of "higher being",
though they may socially revert to the usage of an expressed humility which is
likewise interpreted to be a quality exemplifying someone who is frequently thought
to be "better" than the average or normal person who some think is egotistical,
conceited and in many ways, self-centered. It is a role to be practiced from one's
own vantage point, and that they, or someone supporting them, attempts to arrange
circumstances to create a particular effect, like a stage-hand in charge of setting
up scenery...

...For example, elections are particularly contrived to set up the situation
in which someone may play out the role of a "chosen one"... a character role that
seems to be indelibly imprinted on the human psyche to take part in... either as
the main actor, an assistant to the actor, or like so many extras on a movie set...
scenes which become so often repeated by other settings one must stop viewing for
awhile or become so mentally serialized that they can no longer think an individualized
thought....

...For example, many people prefer that some religion define the meaning of God
and Morality for them, little realizing that religion seeks to sanction itself as
a "chosen one" by claiming that God and Morality belong to them, when they are
actually separate issues. Religion, God, and Morality become like three conflicting
branches of government that the "Religion Branch" tries to dominate and often does,
because the people refuse to exert their own opinion due to a taught frailty of
conscience. Whereas a person, or the people have a right to speak, they cower in
the presence of an assumed "power" instead of accepting their rightful place of
speaking their own mind... though at first attempts may be little more than monologues
of taught repetition, mirrored reflections of standardized beliefs, or poorly
articulated babblings of oneself finding their voice.

~~~

They're only human. This three-word phrase is used by those historians
who want to minimize acts, actions, or activities of those they want to be viewed
for a contribution made that is defined as desirable. For example, the founding
fathers of America who committed acts we of today would clearly define as illegal,
do not have their reputations diminished by referring to them as monsters. Yet, if
a person who was not a Founding Father had committed a similar act, they might well
be viewed in a dimmer light of respectability. Whereas it is commonly asserted that
History is written by the victors to show themselves in a good light, it nonetheless
shows an inclination towards effecting an hypocrisy.

The killing of thousands to effect a robbery is viewed in a different way than
if the killing occurred during a war. If the killer of the robbery is a priest and
the killer of the war is a criminal, the writer of these occasions may well resort
to personal prejudices in disclosing one or another detail... with an emphasis on
the good or the bad. However, an inclination towards one spectrum or the other can
obscure the presence of the other side... as well as incremental variations between.
In other words, and to the point, that which we are taught to interpret and define
as good, such as a government structure, may actually be less so. And only by a
correct definition might we afford ourselves an amicable ability with which to
correct flaws. Yet, though we might itemize problems, our inclination towards
rationalizing the bad into something less so, may keep us from initiating a
correction.

A people want to believe that their government is the best design which is best
for them. Without an available alternative and supportive criteria for adoption,
they will dutifully protect and defend their practiced assertions. In addition,
if circumstances are not bad enough for a given majority to protest against, physically
or at least vocally, there is no incentive to look elsewhere... since in their view,
all is right with their world. With governments designed by those who want to minimize
faults and maximize perceived merits, the social structure such as public education,
laws and colloquial "street" philosophy is drawn up to assist in its retention.
Though, like America, it was established by way of a Revolution, it was a Revolution
stirred up by those in the upper and middle classes, while it was the lower classes
which did most of the actual fighting. Because the middle and upper classes impressed
their ideas as having the most merit, the design of the government was and remains
one which is meant to benefit them the most... though in recent years the middle
class has become more and more marginalized.

However, though the Revolution was in large part created by those with a direct
economic incentive for doing so, the early American colonies were in some respects
seen as a state of lower class from the business, political, and social gentry of
England. It matters not how some in the American colonies saw themselves when
compared to those in England whom they tried to emulate, they were nonetheless, on
the whole, viewed as a type of "other" social class. While many tried to recreate
England by way of a "New England" by having similar furniture, drinking the same
tea, wearing similar clothes, and speaking the "Kings' English", they were not
actually considered to be a part of the English nobility or authority... even if
they regarded themselves as having such a parity. While some have commented that
many so-called Americans were little more than displaced English men and women,
the breadth of displacement was differentially perceived, depending on what shore
you stood on. The to-be Americans actually did not recognize how differently they
were perceived until the English government started enacting laws which did not
take into consideration the people themselves. Much in the manner in which the
present three branches of government have and are treating the people of today...
with a significant similarity to ancient England's disregard for Self-Representation.

This disregard is another precedent. But there are many. While the aforementioned
three -to- one portrayals rest on perspective, on deduction and application, this
is the very nature of our presumptions of established truth. Most are by way of
trial and error, with a few having found their way to some semblance of experimentation
to provide some measure of proof to bolster our confidence in. It is this confidence
with which we have asserted that the present structure of social self-governance
is correct, is the best, and in particular, is our own. Yet, the increasingly
realized similarities amongst the peoples throughout the world is rendering the
divergencies of political structure into an obsolescence. There is an increasing
measure of convergence taking place. It is a convergence of intellect beginning to
acknowledge a reliance on the same conclusions though they may have initially originated
in seemingly different perceptions and different instances. It is the development
of a singular language of an implied consciousness being expressed in a new form
of government... a Cenocracy... though many do not yet know it by name.

Be a new form of government called a Monarchy, a Socialism, a Communism, an
Oligarchy, a Democracy, or whatever, each has come to replace a former. There would
not be a need to do so if there were not a need to do so. While remnants of a former
structure may persist in form if not in some deed or ceremony, the old name was
replaced with a new name... to affect and effect perception. This is why the usage
of the present social structures, even if they are though to be fronts for something
otherwise existing, such as Democracy concealing an Oligarchy, or it is called a
Democratic Socialism to conceal a modern day version of serfdom; there nonetheless
needs to be a change in order to confront those who would use such terms as a cloak...
and dagger against the people. It is difficult to conceal oneself in the same manner
when the terrain has changed. While some may remark that an adaptation will merely
appear, it will be much less effective if the change in terrain is accompanied by
a new social ordering, as a Cenocracy promises to effect. It is needless to say
that a mere change in name is enough to alter the underlying disposition, unless
the disposition is directly related to the name in use. It is sometimes more difficult
to alter perception based on attempting to change a definition, if the definition
is too closely aligned with the name that is further associated with something good
or bad, whether or not the added labeling is correct.

While the precedent of using an old word in a new context has some merit, such
as by saying that a Cenocracy is a New Democracy (Ceno-Democracy), this might lead
some to advantage them towards re-establishing an assertion for using the old
governing formula by reverting to a sole usage of the term Democracy in a social
atmosphere suggesting a re-invigoration... which disavows the need for making any
suggested "radical" changes; with the term "radical" to be viewed in a disparaging
way. The adopted usage of the word "Cenocracy" is not meant to conceal, but unveil.
While some people adopt a new name to conceal an old identity such as in the case
of entering into a government protection program for having committed one's testimony
against one or more others who might seek retribution... others adopt a new name
to provide themselves and others with a more favorable perspective.

A person has every reason not to believe in a Cenocracy when their adopted usage
of a Democracy affords them with a measure of prominence in their given social
setting, they earn an acceptable level of wages, and are permitted a given expression
of power.
Date of Origination: Sunday, December 14, 2014 3:54 AM
Date of initial posting: Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Updated Posting: Monday, December 22, 2014